Calls for legal same-sex marriage (1 Viewer)

[iamsickofyear12]

yeah okay great trolling we're all outraged by your sociopathic views now fuck off

I'm not trolling

The post you are replying to is a statement of fact, not an opinion. Legal rights are public, not private.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Hopefully within a decade or 2 it'll be as embarrassing to say you're "against" gays/gay marriage as it is now to say you're "against" black people

I believe it will be

Yeah, because so much has happened between 1998 and now! Think of the huge distance we've come!!!

 

[incentivation]

MYSTERY QUOTE who-said-it?

Pope Benedict XVI ..

Whilst I support the recognition of certain legal rights between particular couples (including but extending beyond homosexuals), I am still opposed to the idea of marriage between two persons of the same sex.

I don't believe the Marriage Act delineates between the religious or civil kind, however it does explicitly identify marriage to be 'the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life'.

I continue to perceive marriage from a relativist perspective in that the concept of marriage, particularly in western society, is contingent upon the beliefs within the bible, among other religious texts.

Ultimately, the position one takes in relation to same sex marriage will depend upon their core beliefs ideas. If we are to operate under the notion of government for the people, by the people, particularly on these contentious issues, there should be a greater emphasis on extracting the mood of the community as a whole.

Whilst plebicites are expensive and require extensive organisation, on issues of this nature where there is immense community feeling, such action would be warranted.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Pope Benedict XVI ..

Whilst I support the recognition of certain legal rights between particular couples (including but extending beyond homosexuals), I am still opposed to the idea of marriage between two persons of the same sex.

I don't believe the Marriage Act delineates between the religious or civil kind, however it does explicitly identify marriage to be 'the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life'.

I continue to perceive marriage from a relativist perspective in that the concept of marriage, particularly in western society, is contingent upon the beliefs within the bible, among other religious texts.

Ultimately, the position one takes in relation to same sex marriage will depend upon their core beliefs ideas. If we are to operate under the notion of government for the people, by the people, particularly on these contentious issues, there should be a greater emphasis on extracting the mood of the community as a whole.

Whilst plebicites are expensive and require extensive organisation, on issues of this nature where there is immense community feeling, such action would be warranted.

a) You obviously googled it and then pasted the name from a website. Learn to strip formatting,
b) you say 'whilst' far too much,
c) you talk in waffle-speech. What you said could have been condensed into three sentences.

 

[incentivation]

a) You obviously googled it and then pasted the name from a website. Learn to strip formatting,

Genius.

b) you say 'whilst' far too much,

Twice.

c) you talk in waffle-speech. What you said could have been condensed into three sentences

My prerogative.

You could've addressed the content not the words, but again, thats your prerogative.

 

[xeuyrawp]

I said 'say', not 'said', hunny. Maybe learn the whole reading thing...

Secondly, how would anyone address the content of your post beyond what's already been stated in the thread? :S Nor do I see why anyone would want to dissect wannabe legalese.

 

[incentivation]

I said 'say', not 'said', hunny. Maybe learn the whole reading thing...

It's written not spoken.

Maybe learn the difference thing between spoken and written word..

And yes, I do have a habit of writing whilst.

I suppose it's similar to your habit of being a sphincter.

Secondly, how would anyone address the content of your post beyond what's already been stated in the thread? :S Nor do I see why anyone would want to dissect wannabe legalese

Point out the legal terminology to me?

 

[romancandle]

It really is quite simple.

Marriage is a religious union... defined by Islam, christianity, Judaism and countless others as a joint agreement between male and female before the sight of god.


You can not screw that over with having gays join in agreement. Marriage is a religious agreement and like it or not 90% of religions disagree with gay marriage.

So what can gays and lesbos do? have a civil union etc! ahuh I hear or you silly buggers (scuse the pun..) say! Civil union is different ot marriage (duh.. ) and as a result those in civil unions dont get the benifits of marriage under the law!

Simply solved, bring law in lines so that it is equal.. And no, that wont make marriage and civil union the same. Marriage is a religious doctrine, civil union is not. There is yuour difference.

And we all live happily ever after...

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Yeah, because so much has happened between 1998 and now! Think of the huge distance we've come!!!

Yeah nothing has changed at all since then has it?

EDIT: holy shit if slow changes over a 10 year period didn't happen because you can't notice them, and 100 years is just 10 increments of 10 year periods over which nothing changes because you can't notice it, then nothing must change over 100 years too!

Seriously though, the last 10 years saw the rise and fall of Hansonism and the emergence of terrorism as a major international issue, just for 2 things off the top of my head.

Also 1998 saw the "Bringing Them Home" report on the stolen generations, and a Reconciliation Conference, with the Howard Government officially refusing to apologise. At the time it was obviously popular enough, and over the last 10 years public opinion shifted enough for Rudd to apologise this year.

 

[Iron]

In pre-Western Japan, nothing changed for 700 years. Peace and prosperity. But they got by alright with elaborate tea ceremonies and other pursuits of formalised, perfectionist snobbery

 

[Captain Gh3y]

In pre-Western Japan, nothing changed for 700 years.

The stone ages lasted on the order of 100 times that long with minimal changes, so what?

 

[Iron]

Lol point.
But were they really happy like the Japanese? I doubt it

 

[Iron]

lol I was actually thinking of the Newstopia skit of Leni when I wrote that.
"I merely made films praising fascist aesthetics and Adolf Hitler - FOR THIS they called me a Nazi... /lean forward/ a long bow to draw"

Cracked me up somefin chronic mang

 

[Goji Berries]

I've heard a lot of religious people being opposed to same sex marriage not because they mistakenly believe we live in a theocracy, but because introducing same sex marriage would force religious people to accept (and perhaps even promote) homosexuality. They say this is not so much about rights of individuals (as all individuals should be treated equally by the law) but about rights and promotion of actions/relationships.

If we seek the ideal of each individual having freedom and autonomy, is this a relevant point? Can two men excercising the freedom to call each other husband get in the way of a religious man not wanting to refer to them in that way?

 

[Iron]

Yeah I think that you hit the much broader question of whether society can function with relativism/without moral absolutes. Pretty open question.

edit: because it cannot function without the family unit

 

[*TRUE*]

Yeah I think that you hit the much broader question of whether society can function with relativism/without moral absolutes. Pretty open question.

edit: because it cannot function without the family unit

I believe 100% that society CANNOT funtion without moral absolutes. But defining moral absolutes is difficult......

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Everything fluctuates, unfortunately.

That's why we need variable absolutes

 

[Graney]

I believe 100% that society CANNOT funtion without moral absolutes. But defining moral absolutes is difficult......

Shouldn't the rule of law, obeyed and enforced, be sufficient to maintain society?

The family doesn't need to be legislated and protected, coming as it does from a primal need for companionship.

 

[*TRUE*]

Shouldn't the rule of law, obeyed and enforced, be sufficient to maintain society?

The family doesn't need to be legislated and protected, coming as it does from a primal need for companionship.

What is the rule of law based upon? My opinion is that it is based on moral absolutes.
I think your point about the family is interesting though....

 

[Captain Gh3y]

What is the rule of law based upon? My opinion is that it is based on moral absolutes.

So where do your moral absolutes come from?